Sally Field’s Anti-War Emmy Rant
The Left is in a tizzy because Fox cut her off as she was launching into her anti-war speech. Lefties are claiming that she was being censored for her anti-war stance. But if you watch the clip, you’ll see that they cut her off when she said G-Damn, which is a word that is often censored from broadcasts.
In any case, watch it and judge for yourself.
Yeah, I thought they cut away and I said to my husband, I bet she said “G-dam”, too.
Funny how the ACLU and the left never gets in a tizzy when a high school student has her valedictorian speech censored because she mentions “Christ”, “Jesus” or “God”....I guess only SOME types of speech are supposed to be free.
Posted by Amy P. on September 17, 2007 at 0804 hrs
was it a live show? If not, then why not just bleep the curse?
Posted by Matt on September 17, 2007 at 0809 hrs
I read her remark online…I didn’t think it was that bad. We’ve seen worse….I figured when they cut away she was going on a 10-minute rant against Bush.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 17, 2007 at 0811 hrs
Amy, the ACLU defends Christians and Christian churches quite often. The only thing that’s “funny” about it is how the right never acknowledges this fact.
Posted by scott on September 17, 2007 at 0814 hrs
Actually, scott, your ilk always like to use that.
How ‘boot some examples?
Posted by still Unreal... on September 17, 2007 at 0820 hrs
How many examples will it take to shut you up about it? Permanently?
Posted by scott on September 17, 2007 at 0823 hrs
Bad form, Scott. Take your attitiude and play in the dirt somewhere else.
Posted by Cindy on September 17, 2007 at 0834 hrs
What a complete nutbag.
Posted by KT on September 17, 2007 at 0835 hrs
Bullshit. I hear this all the time here and at other conservative blogs. People whine about the ACLU and how they’re anti-Christian. I want to know, once and for all, how many examples of the ACLU defending Christians and Christian churches it will take for you all to shut your holes once and for all about it? How many? One? Ten? Give me a number.
Posted by scott on September 17, 2007 at 0839 hrs
No, the word “g-damn” is not censored from broadcasts anymore, by FCC ruling.
So it was a Fox decision to delete the rest of her sentence, for whichever word—“g-damn” or “war.” (As Matt noted, it could have deleted the “g-damn,” if that was was the problem for Fox, and kept “war.” Live-show technology has delays and allows that fine-tuning.)
Not arguing with Fox’s decision, just keeping the facts straight as to censorship—who censors what. As to why the ACLU came into this, who the “@#$!” knows. It wasn’t involved, Amy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 17, 2007 at 0858 hrs
Why not start with ONE scott?
Posted by still Unreal... on September 17, 2007 at 0858 hrs
Scott’s leading you on, of course, because it’s easy to find lots of examples.
Put your finger in one hole in the dike, Scott, and they’ll spring another leak elsewhere. Some seem to deeply need a catch-all bogeyman like the ACLU.
For that matter, some like to use Fox News for that - I know I do. Anyone here think they’re fair and balanced in the Wisconsin Public Radio sense? (So why was WPR unable to find a Republican to talk about the budget for 20 minutes this morning?) Anyone think Fox Network’s entertainment programming is especially uplifting?
Amy P., if the student is told to keep a presentation free of religion, and they do otherwise, what do you think should happen? If they’re told not to swear, and they do, what do you think should happen?
But this isn’t about schools, it’s about TV. It’s Fox’s choice to censor Fields completely, be it because of one word, a phrase, or her dress. Do you think they did it because of “God-damned”? Or the war? You think they would’ve bleeped her if she’d praised Jesus?
The full quote:
“May they be seen, may their work be valued and raised. Especially to the mothers who stand with an open heart and wait. Wait for their children to come home from danger, from harm’s way, and from war. I am proud to be one of those women. If mothers ruled the world, there would be no god-damned wars in the first place.”
Posted by John Foust on September 17, 2007 at 0903 hrs
If one is what you want, here’s one. In this case the ACLU defends a conservative Christian man’s right to stand in front of Wal-Mart and protest their policy on gays.
Posted by scott on September 17, 2007 at 0907 hrs
Kay & JF,
I agree that this was Fox’s decision. I said that GD is often censored but not that it was an FCC mandate. It is censored because it is offensive to a lot of people. Personally I think that she was censored for her choice of language - not the subject matter - because Fox has allowed anti-war rants to air in the past.
But, as JF mentions, I don’t want to get between you and your “bogeyman”
Posted by Owen on September 17, 2007 at 0911 hrs
I guess that explains your headline, Owen. It wasn’t about the war, it was about coarse language that might offend the children and sensitive adults who watch the Emmys on Fox.
Posted by John Foust on September 17, 2007 at 0933 hrs
scott’s example was of a christian who was anti walmart.
classic. i now see the error of my ways.
Posted by still Unreal... on September 17, 2007 at 0942 hrs
So you find that example unacceptable - for reasons you either cannot or will not explain. How many more examples do you need, SU? You were the one who asked for examples. How many will it take for you to:
1. Stop saying or writing that the ACLU is against Christians or Christianity
2. Correcting people who say or write that the ACLU is against Christians or Christianity
I’m looking for a hard number here. What’s it gonna be?
Posted by scott on September 17, 2007 at 0952 hrs
Amy, don’t you know when you’re being set up? Plenty of cases to cite, which, of course, Scott knows. Here are a few…there are more
www.riaclu.org/20060111.html
www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3379553&nav;=15MVaB2T
www.stcynic.com/blog/ archives/2005/08/aclu_defends_another_street_pr.php; www.aclu.org/religion/gen/19918prs20050804.html
www.aclu.org/religion/schools/20174prs20050920.html
www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/22354prs20051206.html
www.laaclu.org/News/2005/Aug26SandersvCain.htm
www.aclupa.org/downloads/SpringDocket.pdf
www.aclu-or.org/litigation/portlandadventacademy/PAA.html
www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2004/nov/19/517853141.html
www.aclu-wa.org/detail.cfm?id=57
www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/16230prs20040603.html
www.iclu.org/news/news_article.asp?ID=978
www.aclu-nj.org/legal/closedcasearchive/statevlloydfuller.htm
www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12828prs20030221.html
www.rifrn.net/blog/blogs/noskin_b.php?p=45&more;=1&c;=1&tb;=1&pb;=1
www.aclu.org/studentsrights/religion/12811prs20020711.html
www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/10925prs20020108.html
www.aclu.org/religion/frb/16040prs20020417.html
www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html
www.firmstand.org/news/rosary.html
legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/news/msg00021.html
www.catholicherald.com/eddesk/97ed/ed971211.htm
www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12852prs20050429.html
www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12852prs20050429.html
www.acluutah.org/01report.htmPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 17, 2007 at 1000 hrs
Since I didn’t do a great job with all the links, just go here instead for a summary of the cases: http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 17, 2007 at 1005 hrs
I know it’s off-topic, but this is a falsehood that is found on blogs like this one with regularity. It’s easily disproved, however, and so I’d like to get some resolution on this with the folks presently involved. I am calling on SU and Amy to either:
1. Renounce their ACLU-bashing ways, going forth and correcting anyone who claims that they’re anti-Christian, or
2. Explain why all these examples are inadequate to disprove their position
Posted by scott on September 17, 2007 at 1011 hrs
Scott, I think it’s about a majority vs. minority situation, and the inability of some to see the strength in defending the minority. Most often, the non-religious and the non-Christian (among many other types of people) are in the minority. There are many who’d prefer to think that “majority rules” so the minority should just suck it up. They think it’s OK to use the power of government to push their aims, like pushing Christianity, promoting the war, etc.
Posted by John Foust on September 17, 2007 at 1015 hrs
Scott, the ACLU has no problem taking on cases on behalf of Christians when those cases fit their agenda. Numbers of these prove nothing. The problem is that they claim their agenda is defending the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people but have never taken on a Second Amendment case on behalf of the right of the people.
Right now, after a former ACLU chief has been convicted of possesion of child pornography (not 15 year old Ukranian girls au naturelle but infant molestation stuff) it is real easy to worry about what that agenda is.
Posted by triticale on September 17, 2007 at 1031 hrs
Well, the problem here is that the flying Nun really didn’t say anything at all.
She knew her time was running out and she began to stammer and stutter, trying fervently to remember her MoveOn talking points. But she couldn’t and the music starting to come up, and she was left with nothing else to say except “this G** damn war”.
So, all she did was make herself look like an idiot with no coherent or original thought. Desperate and pathetic.
Posted by Mr. Pelican Pants on September 17, 2007 at 1033 hrs
Scott, the ACLU has no problem taking on cases on behalf of Christians when those cases fit their agenda. Numbers of these prove nothing.
Ummmm….huh?
So these are part of the ACLU’s left-wing, stamp-out-religion agenda?
- protecting the right to preach Christianity on sidewalks
- protecting the right of a 2nd-grader to sing “Awesome God” at a school talent show
- protecting the right of Baptist ministers to perform baptisms in a public river
- helping to prevent the exclusion of jurors from cases because of their religious beliefs
- fighting the suspensions of students who handed out candy canes with a religious message
- protecting the right of students to distribute religious literature during after-school periods
- protecting the rights of students to have religious content in their yearbook entries
- protecting the right of prisoners to keep rosary beads
- protecting the right of a nurse to wear a cross-shaped pin on the job
- protecting the right of a Methodist group to use a community building for meetingsHow exactly is it that these cases demonstrate that the ACLU is only willing to protect religious freedom when it supports their own “agenda”?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 17, 2007 at 1046 hrs
Right now, after a former ACLU chief has been convicted of possesion of child pornography (not 15 year old Ukranian girls au naturelle but infant molestation stuff) it is real easy to worry about what that agenda is.
I haven’t heard of this story, but nonetheless, why does the fact that the ACLU employed a scumbag make you worry about the organization’s agenda?
Though their transgressions are certainly on a much less serious scale, should Craig, Hart, Foley, Clinton, Vitter, etc. lead me to question the platform of both the Republican and Democratic parties?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 17, 2007 at 1114 hrs
Owen, assumptions again. I quite carefully pointed out that I was only clarifying, since the debate was digressing as to the source of the censorship, wandering off even to the ACLU. I also was carefully pointing out that I was not weighing in on use of profanity on the air. As it happens, I also find it too often is gratuitous, as in this case.
War, after all, is a sufficiently fearsome term. And as I read the Bible, it’s pretty clear that the Creator generally (note, generally) would damn us for killing off each other, as we are created in His/Her image. (Trying to cover myself here from further misdirecting this discussion!) So modifying the term war with the term “g-damned” is gratuitious.
This is, actually, a good case in point for aspiring public speakers as an instance when use of profanity can work against a cause, such as arguing against censorship (that is, more the cause discussed on this thread, not the cause she raised). Had
Ms. Fields not used “g-damn,” and had Fox still bleeped the word “war,” this would be a more focused discussion.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 17, 2007 at 1145 hrs
If mothers ruled the world, there would be no god-damned wars in the first place.”
What a rediculous comment.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 17, 2007 at 1157 hrs
I think there’s something to it. There would be a price paid, however. We’d all be living in trees, without the benefit of medicine or technology. Half our children would die before they were 3. That kind of thing.
Posted by scott on September 17, 2007 at 1200 hrs
PatrickR, look at those cases and tell me who the ACLU is defending and who they’re defending them from.
What’s the “agenda” of the ACLU?
Come on, no one’s going to step up to the plate and defend the war? You disagree with Sister Bertrille?
Posted by John Foust on September 17, 2007 at 1200 hrs
Republicans hate the ACLU because it values freedom and constitutional rights over security. Time and again, I read on conservative blogs about how the ACLU sucks because they defend the rights of criminals to due process, defend the rights of atheists to not be besieged by government-endorsed religion, defend the due process rights of convicts on death row, defend the rights of accused terrorists to be treated like human beings. Many of these positions are unpopular, but in terms of our constitution, it is vital that we have an organization and people in general who will defend unpopular positions.
For a recent example, one look no further than those bloggers who seemingly want to lynch George Limbeck (Mitchell Pask’s attorney) because a judge decided to overturn his client’s guilty verdict. Pask has a constitutional right to competent legal representation, and the job of any competent defense attorney is to play to win. Some people are pissed off because Limbeck did his job. To do so is to fundamentally misunderstand the Constitution.
But Democrats aren’t ones to talk about free speech either, given the number of times they’ve gone to the well on hate speech legislation to pander to minorities. Democrats are all for free speech unless you’re using it to pick on gays or blacks, at which time government must step in and do something to stop people from hurting one another’s feelings. Their record is equally sad and pathetic.
Both sides routinely ignore the Constitution to pander to their ignorant constituencies and strengthen their grasp on power. Sadly, on issues of free speech, Americans deserve better than *both* parties.
Oh, and yeah, FOX totally cut off Sally Field off for the obscenity. They went back to the audio as soon as it was safe.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on September 17, 2007 at 1224 hrs
Oh my, some Republicans are really gonna hate the ACLU now—but others are just gonna be more confused . . . as even if Sen. Craig hasn’t come out:-), the ACLU has come out for him.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 17, 2007 at 1244 hrs
I think that was well said RS. I have only condemned individual cases the ACLU has been involved in not the organization as a whole, but any time I have voiced criticism, I have gotten slammed as a hater or majority rules sheep, etc.
There is definitely a perceived attitude from the wingnut right that the ACLU is a liberal hot bed and thus all things connected are ‘bad, mkay?’ Of course, it is in many senses a liberal hotbed, but that does not mean they can’t or don’t do good work.
Oh, and yeah, I could care less why they censored Sally Fields because I refuse to get my political views from any entertainment icon, unless they go in to politics.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 17, 2007 at 1317 hrs
Fair enough, RS, but let’s put it in perspective. Do more Republicans hate on the ACLU uniformly than Democrats who support “hate speech” limits? I’d say there are more free-speech non-Republicans than pro-ACLU Republicans.
Posted by John Foust on September 17, 2007 at 1330 hrs
I prefer pro civil liberties, anti ACLU. There is no conflict between the two.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 17, 2007 at 1352 hrs
But Democrats aren’t ones to talk about free speech either… Their record is equally sad and pathetic.
This is a great point. However, I first want to point out that it in no way negates my original point that the ACLU is not anti-Christian and that people who go around saying its should stop immediately. Especially those who know better, as everyone involved in this thread does by now.
On to your point. It’s a good one. I don’t know that I would argue moral equivalency between the kind of speech-limiting favored by the left and the kind favored by the right. however. Both may be unconstitutional in some ways, but quite aside from their legality, the liberals desire to limit speech is born out of a desire to keep the powerful majority from abusing a powerless minority. The right’s speech-limiting impulses are born of less noble sentiments. Usually they are trying to stifle minorities, new ideas and openness. Theirs is a crusade to keep the powerful in power and the outsiders outside.
Posted by scott on September 17, 2007 at 1402 hrs
The left’s anti-free speech impulses have never been noble in nature. They are based upon fundamentally obscene beliefs, namely that they are somehow able to determine what speech is undesirable, that they can and should regulate that speech, that government is the proper institution for doing so, and that the consequences of doing so are both measurable and in some way “better” than not regulating that speech.
People who claim good intentions are far more dangerous than those who merely claim self interest.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 17, 2007 at 1412 hrs
It’s a freakin awards show, not your personal platform to go off on politics for an unlimited amount of time. If what you have to say is so important, then say it in the first minute, as opposed to gushing about all the wonderful talents of the cast and crew on your TV show.
As an aside. I thought I heard this morning that 30 Rock won best sitcom? Anyone seen 30 Rock? If it wasn’t slotted next to The Office I wouldn’t have either. An awards show that makes a decision like that is her platform? Seems like her problems start there.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 17, 2007 at 1426 hrs
Those are the same “obscene” motivations for conservative speech-limiting, I would guess. So it’s a wash on that front even if you’re right about them.
People who claim good intentions are far more dangerous than those who merely claim self interest.
And a stitch in time saves nine. Heh. Seriously, what is that supposed to mean? Sounds like conservative sloganeering to me, frankly.
Posted by scott on September 17, 2007 at 1427 hrs
Self interest may be accomodated without sacrificing others’ interests. Self interest can also coincide with most people’s interest. Finally, self interest is much more transparent than good intentions and can be easily exposed when it is found to be counter to most people’s interests. This is precisely why it is that speech codes have been passed; they are based on supposed good intentions. Inflict your good intentions for someone else.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 17, 2007 at 1440 hrs
Dude, that’s a big steaming load of BS.
Posted by scott on September 17, 2007 at 1447 hrs
Sorry, Scott but this country works precisely by figuring out how to make self interest in the country’s interest. Only when one has to have the “correct” intentions do we get stupid.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 17, 2007 at 1459 hrs
Yes, the Libertarian wet dream: everyone’s self-interested actions result in the best world for everyone. Somehow. Magic. Adam Smith’s invisible hand. Or something.
There is a reason why people with this kind of ideology can’t get elected to anything, man. Hint: it’s barking mad and embarrassingly naive.
Us sane people in the middle know that there’s a balance between cooperation and competition; between individual freedom and the public interest; between the free market and regulation; between government and private interest. Where exactly that balance lies is a subject of eternal debate everywhere. But to just up and announce your for one extreme or the other is just taking yourself right out of the game.
Be that as it may, your contention that speech-limiting motivated by a desire to empower the powerless is worse than speech-limiting born of a desire to preserve power for the powerful is… well, as nonsensical as it is puzzling. You know, I could see if you wanted to take the stance that it’s all the same, that speech-limiting is always an equal bad. I wouldn’t really argue about it, as that’s a fairly sensible position. But to say what you’re saying just makes no sense to me at all.
Posted by scott on September 17, 2007 at 1514 hrs
“There is a reason that people with this kind of ideology can’t get elected…”
It’s the same reason that Fergie has the #1 song in America, that fewer than 4% of Americans can name the five rights protected by the 1st Amendment, and that the vast majority of Americans don’t have even an elementary understanding of basic economics.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 17, 2007 at 1537 hrs
Also Scott, I noticed you’ve been harping on the righties for not explaining why they hate the ACLU, but here, all you can do is say “that’s a big steaming load of BS.” I suppose that you consider that an argument because it’s “steaming.” How are you any different?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 17, 2007 at 1539 hrs
You’re not in the middle, and I took neither a libertarian or extreme position. A libertarian position would be self interest regardless of the country’s interest. Making self interest the public interest is, and always has been, the key to this country’s success. Those in politics who succeed in bringing the two together are remembered as our best politicians.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 17, 2007 at 1541 hrs
Jesus, I think it’s because nobody has any confidence that it will work.
And I invoked “steaming BS” in reference to a comment that I considered too meaningless to even argue against. It wasn’t even itself an argument. It was the claim that wrongs done through a desire to help people are worse than wrongs done out of self-interest. Yeah? Is there a logical argument for this, or any proof of it? Not really. Just a statement that makes no sense on its face with nothing to back it up. In other words, total BS. Just talking to be talking. Noise. I stand by my assessment of it. I’m actually trying not to write essays in response to throwaway comments like that. It’s too tiring, and the people at whom you direct it don’t care anyway.
Finally, Jesus, I’m not harping on the right for not explaining why they hate the ACLU. They’ve been quite clear about why they hate it. My contention is simply that they are completely mistaken about the ACLU. I think I (and others) have sufficiently put that to rest.
Posted by scott on September 17, 2007 at 1557 hrs
I never claimed that wrongs done in the name of good intentions are worse than wrongs done in the name of self interest, only that the doers are are more dangerous.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 17, 2007 at 1602 hrs
And to that I say: BS.
Posted by scott on September 17, 2007 at 1611 hrs
Okay Scott, I’ll defend the position that seeking to control in order to help people is more dangerous than seeking to control for your own self interest. Lets look at the religious right’s attempts to control the use of birth control for example. They seek to control what substances other people put into their bodies. They do this because they believe that asseting these controls would help people [get into Heavan?]. Because of this position, they are able to garner support for these positions and speak of them as if they are on equal footing with the counter positions (the counter position is, of course, “freedom is good”). Now, compare this to someone that wants to control what substances other people put into their body out of self interest; for example, a drug company that lobbies to hinder the approval of a different birth control drug becasue they make a competing drug. The only reasons this company could provide to support such a position would be easily exposed by the fact that that company’s position is adverse to the drug that is pending approval. Exposure of this companies motives would go a long way to defending against their dangerous acts. Exposing the Christian right motives does little good in terms of public opinion, but the results of their actions are just as dangerous and harder to fight against.
You mean something like that BV?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 17, 2007 at 1614 hrs
We all know how Scott hates examples when there could be statistics instead, but Jesus, that is an excellent example. Litigated morality is equivalent to litigated political correctness.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 17, 2007 at 1628 hrs
That’s a large part of it , Jesus. But also the drug company knows it is acting in its’ own interest, (often it knows it is wrong), but in any case can be relied upon to stop at the end of its’ own interest. Good intentions have no limit. Their advocates cannot be relied upon to stop anywhere.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 17, 2007 at 1629 hrs
If FOX had aired it, they would have been fined by the FCC for indecency. It’s that simple.
Posted by Josh Schroeder on September 17, 2007 at 1802 hrs
You like her! You really like her!
At least she is passionate for something else besides Boneva. Let’s see if she holds on the that endorsement.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 17, 2007 at 1808 hrs
There is no doubt the ACLU has defended Christians, but the realm of Christianity is very wide, from the very liberal to the very copnservative. So scott, how many times has the ACLU defended the conservative Christians? Would they or have they defended conservative Baptists in a case vs. a liberal?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 17, 2007 at 2020 hrs
Let’s stop playing games here, Dan. What if I do find such a case? (I can.) What will be your objection then? I’m tired of this. You’re not debating in good faith. Nothing will change your opinion.
Posted by scott on September 17, 2007 at 2034 hrs
I’m sure you can find a few cases also, but they are the exception to the rule.
But on the whole, the ACLU is anti-Christian. They are not anti-Muslim, but anti-Christian. Time and time again, they decide to fight against Christians, whether it is a Bible class, prayer or even monet of silence in schools, cross displays, the ACLU has been consistantly against it. And it is not liberal Christians, it is conservative Christians they fight against the most. They do defend, at times freedom of expression when it comes to religion but it certainly does not defend religous values, except, of course, for Muslims.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 17, 2007 at 2234 hrs
Dan, you either need to read more or remember more. The ACLU has defended the Ku Klux Klan, Nazis and Skinheads. They’d defend you if you got in trouble.
As for so-called Christians, some times you wonder if they need much defense in this country. Really. When you have some dude in a $1,000 suit on a program titled “Christians under Fire” you gotta notice the irony.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 17, 2007 at 2242 hrs
Dan,
Maybe the ACLU fights against christians time and time again because they are so often on the wrong side of constitutional rights issues?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 17, 2007 at 2329 hrs
Are you equating the Ku Klux Klan, Nazis and Skinheads with defending Christianity?.
“They’d defend you if you got in trouble.” I actually asked them to help when I observed a MPS teacher hitting a mentally and physically handicapped student in MPS and they declined. I begged them to help but they refued.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 18, 2007 at 0014 hrs
A. Show me where the ACLU has defended a Christian.
Q. [Lists 50 cases]
A. Okay then show me where the ACLU has defended a <i>conservative,/i> Christian.rofl
Posted by illusory tenant on September 18, 2007 at 0813 hrs
Q. Show me a case where B+S posts an inflammatory headline, fans the flames in the post, then says it’s not about the fire, it’s about that small wisp of smoke. Discuss.
Posted by John Foust on September 18, 2007 at 0833 hrs
What’s even funnier is that there are plenty of such cases. I think, for example, we can assume that the guy preaching his anti-gay message in front of Wal-Mart was what you’d call a “conservative” Christian. Don’t you think? They have defended Phelps. They have defended abortion protesters. It’s probably safe to assume that the students distributing religious messages on their candy canes at school were in fact “conservative” Christians. They were defended by the ACLU also. They have also defended Jerry Falwell.
Q: Show me where the ACLU has defended a Christian
A: [lists cases]
Q: Okay then show me where the ACLU has defended conservative Christians
A: [ilsts cases]
Q: ...
I’m declaring this argument won. Those who claim the ACLU is anti-Christian have lost. I am calling upon everyone reading or participating in this discussion not only to refrain from libeling the ACLU in this way, but also to correct other people when they do so. You now know better. There’s no excuse. Go forth and sin no more. Amen. Can I get a hallelujah?
Posted by scott on September 18, 2007 at 0834 hrs
Scott, you have shown examples or anecdotes of the ACLU defending christianity. Examples suck, are stupid, and unrevealing as to the way things really are, (remember how great the Canadian health care system is despite the useless anecdotal evidence?) what is the percentage of cases that were pro-christianity in the last 30 years?
This is rhetorical. This is always the thing Scott demands, so I figured it was his turn. I don’t need anyone to look up the percentage unless they want to disprove to Scott that the ACLU is prejudicial against Christians. They really aren’t even that probably. Most Christians think that the ACLU is anti-christian because they take so many cases against them or their values that Christians do not petition them in the first place, where the least word against a black person can often bring on an immediate petition, because black people know them to be a strong proponent for them(good for them, that is no condemnation of the ACLU).
I propose that IF: Religious persecutions by the law were a real problem in the US and race relations were not, that the ACLU would be THE champion of the faithful, the occasional racial problem cases would be the target of this thread, and the ACLU make-up would largely conservative church goers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 18, 2007 at 0847 hrs
This is actually all realy stupid. The ACLU is not a pro-Christian or anti-Christian group. They defend constitutional rights, regardless of who’s rights are being violated. What percentage of their cases defended Christians alone says nothing about their biases.
Scott, aren’t you going to explain to me why people seeking control out of their own self interest are more dangerous than people seeking control others in order to help them? Or are you just going to ignore? Can’t even just call BS?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 18, 2007 at 0908 hrs
Examples suck, are stupid, and unrevealing as to the way things really are, (remember how great the Canadian health care system is despite the useless anecdotal evidence?)
Anecdotal evidence about the Canadian health care system aren’t very useful, especially as the anecdotes you guys always cite are in contradiction to more rigorous forms of data. Data which you flatly deny is valid. Like satisfaction ratings of Canadians, like WHO rankings, like their per-capita health care expenditures…
Likewise, anecdotal evidence about the ACLU taking the side of Christians isn’t as good as rigorous data about how often they side with Christians. But as far as I know no such data exist. And furthermore, one need not have a majority of cases to prove that the ACLU is not anti-Christian. One presumes that if they were, they would never take their side. That’s clearly not the case.
Most Christians think that the ACLU is anti-christian because they take so many cases against them
Well, there seem to be two competing hypotheses here.
1. The ACLU is anti-Christian.
2. The ACLU defends civil liberties regardless of whose side it has to take to do so.
Then there is the stone cold fact that the ACLU does in fact defend Christians and Christian groups. Not just once or twice, but in lots of cases. So i ask you. I appeal to your best rational self. Which hypothesis better explains this fact?
If hypothesis 1 is correct, we’re left having to explain a) why the ACLU defends any Christians ever, and b) how they are selecting such cases, if not based on strict concern for civili liberties. No good answers present themselves, as far as I can see. Maybe you can offer some.
If hypothesis 2 is correct, it does explain why the ACLU sometimes defends Christian groups and sometimes not. However, you raise the question as to the frequency of such cases, claiming that they usually take sides against Christian groups.* If hypothesis 2 is correct, what explanations are available to us to account for this? One springs immediately to mind: Christian groups are frequently on the wrong side of civil liberty cases.
(* I by no means concede that this is true, by the way. It may be, but I think I’d rather see the stats on it before I accept it as fact.)
Posted by scott on September 18, 2007 at 0912 hrs
1. Hallelujah
2. The continuing arguments that the ACLU is anti-Christian are predictable, but ultimately revealing of great ignorance about the organization’s mission. The long list of cases laid out here are more than “stupid and unrevealing”, Tuerqas, they are indicative of the real position of the ACLU…fiercely defend the right of American citizens to freely practice and express their religious faith, but fiercely fight against any attempt to establish “A” religion in our country.
For those of you who don’t understand the difference: A) opposing the placing of the 10 Commandments on a public building is in keeping with the ACLU’s mission to prevent the establishment of “A” religion—why should our government embrace Judeo-Christian beliefs in a public place over the beliefs of other faiths? Or, for that matter, why should any faith be shown as “accepted” through such a public display? B) Fighting for the right of a street preacher to oppose homosexuality on a public sidewalk, for a student to include a religious message in her yearbook entry, for nurses to wear a cross at work, etc., are also very much in keeping with the ACLU’s mission. None of these cases have anything to do with our government showing preferential treatment for “A” faith (or any faith, for that matter) over another. It’s about an individual’s right to practice their faith without unconstitutional limitations.
The difference is crystal clear to me, and has nothing to do with the ACLU being anti-Christian. The ACLU is anti-establishment of “A” religion.
Some of you wanted “one” case to illustrate that the ACLU aids Christians. You got about 50. That wasn’t good enough. So now I want “one” case (50 would be better, to be fair) that illustrates that the ACLU takes legal positions that are blatantly anti-Christian for the sake of being anti-Christian, and not for the sake of preventing the establisment of one faith over another.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 18, 2007 at 0913 hrs
Scott, aren’t you going to explain to me why people seeking control out of
their own self interest are more dangerous than people seeking control
others in order to help them?No, I’m not going to explain such thing to you. I don’t believe any such thing, so why should I try to explain it? I merely said that the reverse is BS. Someone claimed that people seeking to limit free speech out of a motivation for helping people are more dangerous than those seeking to do so out of self-interest. And this strikes me as a position taken rather arbitrarily, for ideological reasons; an opinion with no factual evidence to support it. It does not follow, however, that I take the opposite opinion. Both claims are fundamentally without merit. Or, to put it another way, “BS.”
Posted by scott on September 18, 2007 at 0917 hrs
Patrick, you thought my last comment was continuing the argument that the ACLU is anti-christian?
Proposition 2: I propose that commentors read other people’s comments before condemantion or else preface their comments with “I did not take the time to read your comment and understand what you are saying, but…”
Scott, good comment on 67, the assumption that you believed the opposite was true has been incorrectly assumed this whole post.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 18, 2007 at 0927 hrs
My position wasn’t arbitrary, Scott. If good intentions are an appropriate justification for limiting speech, than any limit on speech can be justified on the basis of someone’s “good intentions”. This is inherently far more dangerous than someone seeking to limit speech out of self interest, and the proponents of using such justifications for speech limits should be viewed as far more dangerous.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 18, 2007 at 0933 hrs
That makes absolutely no sense to me. Your claim that speech-limiting is somehow unlimited when motivated by altruism, but limited when motivated by self-interest, is not very compelling. It doesn’t have much appeal on its face, nor have you tried to provide any logical or evidential support for it. Saying it’s so doesn’t make it so. I could make the opposite statement: speech-limiting is unlimited when motivated by self-interest, but limited when motivated by altruism; therefore self-interested speech-limiters are more dangerous to society. But what evidence would such a statement really have? None at all. Which is precisely why I don’t say such things. And neither should you.
Posted by scott on September 18, 2007 at 0942 hrs
Except for tfour things, Scott. One, speech is not under attack from the self interested in this country. It is under attack from the do-gooders, seeking a society where it is unlawful to offend. Two, in order to make your claim you have to claim that self interest is less limited than altruism, but this is simply not so. Third, self interest is limited to the individual, and as such provides a weak justification at best for other actions in the name of self interest. Fourth, self interest is relatively transparent, and thus is more easily opposed by other interests in a democratic society.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 18, 2007 at 0956 hrs
I think earlier in the discussion we divided speech limiters into two groups: those who wish to do so in order to lift up the weak, the less powerful, the minority; and those who wish to do so to preserve power, privilege and majority rule. I’m not sure how the latter became “self-interested,” except insofar as they would certainly themselves be in the majority camp.
Either way you slice it, the claim that one side is “more dangerous” to free speech rights than the other doesn’t hold much water.
As I look back, I find it really strange that we’ve had such a vigorous debate about something that seems so simple, obvious and non-controversial. I would not have predicted it, nor do I think it’s very useful or interesting.
Posted by scott on September 18, 2007 at 1013 hrs
The debate occurred when you decided that the good intentions of the “left” were somehow less repugnant than the self interested “right” as if you were claiming some moral high ground. Be careful, it’s the low ground you’re reaching for.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 18, 2007 at 1023 hrs
The debate occurred when you decided ...
Wrong. It started when you announced that righty speech-limiters were less dangerous than lefty ones (comment 36). That is how it started. I merely said it was BS (40), which it is. I never, ever said that the opposite is true. And when the question was put to me directly, I made that abundantly clear (67).
Posted by scott on September 18, 2007 at 1045 hrs
No Scott, it began with your self righteous comment #35. The attitude contained within that comment speaks volumes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 18, 2007 at 1107 hrs
Oh, that’s what’s got you in a twist! Well, okay, I can see that. I stand by what I said. I was musing that I found a moral distinction between those who overstepped the first amendment in an effort to lift up the less powerful as opposed to those who did so in an attempt to protect the status quo. Both may be illegal, misguided and “dangerous” to the Constitution…but one can draw a moral distinction between the two groups based on their intention. I stand by that.
Posted by scott on September 18, 2007 at 1112 hrs
One may be able to draw a moral distinction, unfortunately it’s not the one you would like.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 18, 2007 at 1144 hrs
I didn’t read #36 as a distinction between left and right. To me it’s obvious that both the left and the right want to exert control on us and limit free speech. I read it to mean that lefties and righties that are out to save the world are more dangerous than lefties and righties that trying to limit our freedom out of their own self interest. Trying to draw a moral distinction between two groups of people that want to limit speech, expand government, and take away personal freedoms for the greater good based on what their idea of the greater good is seems silly to me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 18, 2007 at 1150 hrs
Actually, I saw the inference I think BVB meant, but I read it the same way JIJAWM did.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 18, 2007 at 1410 hrs
it’s obvious that both the left and the right want to exert control
I don’t think it’s fair to say the right and the left have an agenda to curtail free speech. Let’s say rather that there are people of all political persuasions who do not realize the importance of not infringing.
Trying to draw a moral distinction between two groups of people that want to limit speech, expand government, and take away personal freedoms for the greater good based on what their idea of the greater good is seems silly to me.
One might say it’s not of critical importance, but I think the distinction can be made. Both groups are wrong, let’s agree on that. I just happen to view people whose desire is to lift up the little guy with more kindness than those whose desire it is to keep him down. Even if their means are both misguided, as in the case of speech limiting. You may feel differently, but that’s what I think.
Posted by scott on September 18, 2007 at 1422 hrs
“Let’s say rather that there are people of all political persuasions who do not realize the importance of not infringing.”
Not all polticical persuasions. There aren’t people of my political persuasion that don’t realize the importance of freedom. I define my political persuasion in terms of the value of freedom. Your problem is that you seem to believe there are only two political persuasions that you can choose from and and that they are defined by other people rather than you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 18, 2007 at 1452 hrs
There aren’t people of my political persuasion that don’t realize the importance of freedom.
True. They have difficulties on an entirely different axis. Typically they don’t recognize the same need for modern government that the rest of the world does. But that’s a whole other can of worms.
Posted by scott on September 18, 2007 at 1504 hrs
I’m not sure the word “realize” means what you think it means.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 18, 2007 at 1732 hrs
Oops, I meant the word “recognize.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 18, 2007 at 1732 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134057
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 02:38 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 99
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 02:51 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).